2.17.2026 | Ridge Density as an Investigative Tool for Stature by Shelly Brazelle et al.
“Latent prints that are detected at crime scenes can provide the identity of a donor if a match is found in a database or if a known suspect is compared and a match is found. However, even when latent prints cannot be identified, the information within them can still provide investigative leads…”
“The determination of male or female as an investigative tool may be as simple as calculating the thickness of the epidermal ridges or calculating the epidermal ridge density of a latent print. Although this may be difficult in highly distorted latent prints… In 1941, Cummins et al. also suggested that stature may be another influencing variable in epidermal ridge density values [2, 17–24]. To date, one study by Mundorff et al. has reported a moderate correlation between epidermal ridge breadth (thickness) and stature, indirectly suggesting a correla tion between stature and epidermal ridge density in males and females…”
“According to Cummins, the first notation that males have “coarser” epidermal ridges was established by A. F. Hecht in 1924. Hecht reported that an epidermal thickness of 0.40 to 0.50 mm was found in women, and an epidermal ridge thickness of 0.50 mm was found in men…”
See full presentation here
______________________________
1.25.2026 | Mind-set – How bias leads to errors in friction ridge comparisons
by Heidi Eldridge et al.
“Mind-set is a term used in the friction ridge discipline to describe a confirmation bias in which an examiner makes early decisions about their interpretation of a mark but fails to update or reconsider those decisions in light of additional information…
Mind-set is a type of confirmation bias in that it creates an expectation in the mind of the examiner that can lead them to ignore or fail to consider other possibilities…
The analysis phase of comparison serves an important function in providing the examiner with information about the unknown mark that can greatly expedite their search, by narrowing the field to exemplars that match the putative orientation and anatomical source of the mark. However, when an examiner allows themselves to be locked into a mind-set where they do not consider that their initial interpretation could have been wrong, they expose themselves to a risk of erroneous exclusion…”
The Authors explore erroneous IDs, exclusions, and inconclusives.
See full presentation here
______________________________
1.13.2026 | LFIQ: Latent Fingerprint Image Quality by Soweon Yoon et al.
“As the residues from finger skin generally deteriorate over time and latent fingerprints often contain only a partial friction ridge structure of the finger, the quality of the latent fingerprints can be poor and the amount of ridge information contained in the latents is typically limited. . Latent examiners commonly follow the ACE-V methodology to identify latent fingerprints…
If a latent is determined as NV, it is not processed further for comparison. However, the value determination by latent examiners may not always be reliable or consistent because (i) subjectivity of human visual perception in determining image quality or bias from prior knowledge of the case can affect their decision, (ii) different examiners with various levels of expertise in latent examination may not coincide in value determination of the same latent print, and (iii) heavy workload faced by the examiners in latent print units can lead to insufficient amount of time for analysis which can result in false decisions on latent value…
For latent fingerprint images, various extrinsic factors, in addition to intrinsic factors, affect the fingerprint image quality: (i) the surface where the latent print is left can introduce severe background noise in the acquired image, (ii) the latent print may contain impression of only the side or tip of a finger, and (iii) a severe skin distortion can be introduced during impression formation… “
See full presentation here
______________________________
12.28.2025 |
Enhancing fingermark visualisation on pangolin scales and rhino horns using cyanoacrylate fuming and vacuum metal deposition techniques by Lauren Woodcock et al.
“Wildlife crime ranks as the fourth most profitable illegal trade globally… Fingermark analysis is a relatively underexplored area in wildlife forensics, partly due to the complex surfaces of evidence, which often have varying porosities and textures. There is a limited amount of literature exploring cyanoacrylate fuming (CAF) and vacuum metal deposition (VMD) for latent fingermark enhancement in wildlife crime… This is the first study to demonstrate the effectiveness of CAF and VMD (both alone and in sequence) in visualising fingermark evidence on two of the most commonly targeted samples of wildlife trafficking: pangolin scales and rhino horn. The significant findings discussed in this study lay the foundations for applying VMD and CAF in fingermark analysis for wildlife crime investigations. Using both of these methods can reduce workloads for fingermark practitioners, as multiple items can be processed at once. Furthermore, these methods are more automated than other fingermark visualisation methods, such as powdering.”
See full presentation here
______________________________
12.08.2025 | A comparative analysis of human and AI performance in forensic estimation of physical attributes by
Sarah Barrington & Hany Farid.
“The criminal justice system has, therefore, started to turn to artificial intelligence (AI) to improve the reliability and fairness of forensic identification. So as not to repeat history, it is critical to evaluate the appropriateness of deploying these new AI forensic tools…. Because physical attributes like height, weight, age, and race are fundamental to forensic identification, it is essential to validate the accuracy of new and traditional tools. The increasing use of algorithms in incarceration and rehabilitation has been widely scrutinized, ranging from policing, to criminal sentencing and pretrial detention. Use of these automated approaches has raised serious concerns regarding civil liberties and due process rights. The COMPAS algorithm for predicting recidivism, for example, has been found to not only reinforce problematic racial and social biases, but also perform no more accurately than untrained humans … What is particularly surprising about these results is that both the AI and experts had access to explicit metric meas urements, whereas the non-experts were not provided this information… A group of two dozen non-experts outperforms AI and expert height/weight estimation even when the nonexperts are provided with less information. This underwhelming performance by experts and AI should give significant pause as to how—or even if—it is reasonable to rely on these methods for forensic identification based on basic physical attributes.”
See full presentation here
______________________________
11.24.2025 | Forensic science and the principle of excluded middle: “Inconclusive” decisions and the structure of error rate studies by Alex Biedermann et al.
“It has become fashionable in forensic science to refer to examiners’ responses (and conclusions) as decisions, but the field has struggled to use this term properly, not only in terms of understanding the conceptual implications of treating conclusions as decisions, but also in terms of aligning its practice accordingly. The consequence of this are unwarranted… Start by taking a look at a commonly evoked line of argument: suppose an examiner concludes (or reports) “identification” when in fact the compared (test) items come from the same source. Here, “identification” is the decision and “same source” is the true state of nature. By definition, the combination of a decision and a state of nature leads to a decision consequence (or outcome). Here, the decision consequence is an accurate identification and is commonly called a good outcome… “
See full presentation here
______________________________
11.10.2025 | Resolving Differing Expert Opinions by Isabelle Montani et al.
“Indeed, every expert has faced at one time or another of his career this situation: one expert reaches a different conclusion than the one reached by his colleague. For example, in a pattern comparison case (involving for example tool marks, footwear marks or fingermarks), a first expert may reach an inconclusive conclusion, while the other may support the proposition of common source.
One of the two experts can try to convince the other that his logic is better, he could invoke experience, or that he spent more time on the case, and so on. But if we restrict to a scenario where the two experts have similar training and experience, have spent the same amount of time on the case, and are more or less equal in other aspects relevant to the examination process, how can their differing conclusions be resolved?
The key question that we explore in this paper is how are these cases with differing conclusions between the two experts resolved?”
See full presentation here
______________________________
10.13.2025 | Do’s and Don’ts of A Curriculum Vitae by Michele Triplett .
“Your CV makes you look like the professional you are/ It makes qualifying questions unnecessary and it reduces the likelihood of personal attacks.”
Per the closing statement of a successful defense attorney, “Someone capable of exaggerating their qualification is also capable of exaggerating results.”
See full presentation here
______________________________
09.29.2025 | Factors Affecting Recovery of Latent Prints on Firearms by Clive A. Barnum and Darrel R. Klasey.
“Latent fingerprint examiners generally know that even when cutting edge technology such as cyanoacrylate fuming and laser/forensic light source examination are utilized, successful development of latent prints on firearms is difficult to achieve. In reality, very few identifiable latent prints are found on firearms… In the examination of 1,000 firearms from February, 1992, through August, 1995, 114 identifiable latent prints were developed on 93 firearms…. Jurors have been inundated with fingerprint information from television, movies and newspapers and feel that latent print evidence is a reliable means of establishing positive personal identity… The purpose of this paper is to provide information to both technical and non–technical users of fingerprint identification services about what factors affect the recovery of latent prints on firearms “.
See full presentation here
______________________________
09.15.2025 | The Role of Fingerprint Analysis in Crime Investigation and Legal Frameworks by Rupali Vijay Kumbhar et al.
“The field of forensic science has witnessed significant advancements over the years… This research paper delves into the evolution of fingerprint analysis, tracing its journey from traditional manual comparison methods to the sophisticated Automated Fingerprint Identification Systems (AFIS) that are widely used today… Recent advancements, such as digital enhancement techniques and 3D fingerprint imaging, have further revolutionized the way fingerprints are collected, analyzed, and interpreted, making the process more efficient and reliable. However, these advancements also present challenges, including concerns over privacy, potential human error, and the need for standardized procedures across jurisdictions. The research highlights the ongoing relevance of fingerprint analysis in modern forensic science and the justice system, while also pointing to future innovations that could further enhance its role in solving crimes and supporting legal proceedings.”
See full presentation here
______________________________
09.01.2025 | How Cross-Examination on Subjectivity and Bias Affects Jurors’ Evaluations of Forensic Science Evidence by William C. Thompson et al.
“A key goal of the experiment reported here was to learn how jurors view a forensic science expert who claims to have resisted or overcome contextual bias. Are jurors skeptical, or do they find such claims credible? To investigate these questions, we included an experimental condition (the “Ignored condition”) in which the forensic examiner acknowledged being exposed to task-irrelevant contextual information, but claimed that he had intentionally ignored it and had not allowed it to influence his judgments. We wanted to find out whether jurors would view this expert as less credible than an expert who was blind to the task-irrelevant information.”
See full presentation here
______________________________
08.19.2025 | Latent Print Proficiency Testing: An Examination of Test Respondents, Test‐Taking Procedures, and Test Characteristics by Brett O. Gardner et al.
“One concern in extrapolating proficiency test results to routine casework is that test respondents may not be representative of the broader population of examiners. Collaborative Testing Services, Inc. (CTS) is a primary provider of forensic proficiency tests, and there are no restrictions regarding who may order and complete a proficiency test. We therefore do not know whether examiners who complete proficiency tests are more or less experienced than practicing examiners…. Scholars have noted that test respondents “should be representative of examiners who testify in court,”…. Another important limitation to current proficiency testing regards examiners’ behavior during testing and routine casework. Put simply, examiners may behave differently during proficiency testing than during routine analyses. The observed error rates in current proficiency tests may therefore over- or underestimate real-world performance because we cannot be sure that the same population completes proficiency testing.”
See full presentation here
______________________________
08.04.2025 | The Utility of Expanded Conclusion Scales During Latent Print Examinations by Kelly E. Carter et al.
During fingerprint comparisons, a latent print examiner visually compares two impressions to determine whether or not they originated from the same source. They consider the amount of perceived detail in agreement or disagreement and accumulate evidence toward same source and different sources propositions. This evidence is then mapped to one of three conclusions: Identification, Inconclusive, or Exclusion. A limitation of this 3-conclusion scale is it can lose information when translating the conclusion from the internal strength-of-evidence value to one of only three possible conclusions. An alternative scale with two additional values, support for different sources and support for common sources, has been proposed by the Friction Ridge Subcommittee of OSAC. The expanded scale could lead to more investigative leads but could produce complex trade-offs in both correct and erroneous identifications. The goal of the present study was to determine whether the fingerprint comparison process would benefit from an expanded conclusion scale. This might reduce the information lost near the boundaries between conclusions (e.g., a detective might want to know whether a comparison was inconclusive, but the two impressions had strong similarities). “
See full presentation here
______________________________
07.21.2025 | Fingermark age determinations: Legal considerations, review of the literature and practical propositions by A. Girod et al.
“The question of the age of fingermarks is often raised in investigations and trials when suspects admit that they have left their fingermarks at a crime scene but allege that the contact occurred at a different time than the crime and for legal reasons. In the first part of this review article, examples from American appellate court cases will be used to demonstrate that there is a lack of consensus among American courts regarding the admissibility and weight of testimony from expert witnesses who provide opinions about the age of fingermarks. Of course, these issues are not only encountered in America but have also been reported elsewhere, for example in Europe. The disparity in the way fingermark dating cases were managed in these examples is probably due to the fact that no methodology has been validated and accepted by the forensic science community so far. The second part of this review article summarizes the studies reported on fingermark dating in the literature and highlights the fact that most proposed methodologies still suffer from limitations preventing their use in practice “
See full presentation
here
______________________________
07.03.2025
| Expert Fingerprint Testimony POST-PCAST – A Canadian Case Study by
Della Wilkinson et al.
“In July of 2010, Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) forensic identification employees Corporal (Cpl.) Brad Wolbeck and Civilian Member Erin McGreevy attended a residential break and enter in Surrey, British Columbia, where a single latent fingerprint on a Living Dead Doll box was located and developed with fingerprint powder… Subsequently, Justice Funt listed the following troubling aspects with regards to the fingerprint evidence: institutional bias, photocopied vs original, bench notes not in evidence, Verifier of Cpl. Wolbeck’s conclusion was not called as a witness, that which is not seen in a partial print, subjective certainty, 2006 C-2167 evidence, and unexplained discrepancies.”
Note: C-2167 is the name of the RCMP form used to collect a set of known fingerprint standards.
See full presentation
here
______________________________
06.17.2025 | Fingerprint Error Rate on Close Non-matches by J. Koehler, S. Liu.
“The risk of encountering a CNM is heightened when large databases are searched for the source of a print… These databases, which contain prints from millions of individuals … and are used by most police departments in the United States …, are searched hundreds of thousands of times each year. The use of these databases, particularly large ones, may increase the risk of a false identification because they may contain hard-to-distinguish CNM prints …. Concern about false identifications from database-derived CNMs is not merely theoretical. The Brandon Mayfield case, detailed in …, shows both that database CNMs exist and may fool even the best fingerprint examiners.”
See full presentation
here
______________________________
06.03.2025
| Accuracy and reproducibility of latent print decisions on comparisons from searches of an automated fingerprint identification system by
R. Austin Hicklin et al.
“with IAFIS, one rolled impression from each finger was included in the database; with NGI, multiple rolled and plain impressions from each finger are included in the database search. As a result of these changes, when searches are run using latents from subjects who are not in the NGI repository, we can expect the highest-ranking nonmated candidates returned by NGI to be much more similar to the latent searched than those returned by IAFIS. This raises the potential concern that LPEs using NGI are being asked to conduct more challenging comparisons, which in turn may affect the accuracy or reproducibility of their decisions. “
See full discussion here
______________________________
05.19.2025 | Simultaneous Impressions: Discussion between Glenn Langenburg and Eric Ray.
“They talk about different scenarios that can occur such as: some impressions stand alone, none stand alone, aggregation of features, and physical gaps or voids in an impression. They review the famous Mass v. Patterson case from 2005 that started the initial controversy in the field. They also have a chance to discuss John Black’s JFI research article from 2006 and other source material on the subject.”
See full discussion here
______________________________
05.05.2025 | Understanding ‘error’ in the forensic science: A primer by K. A. Martire et al.
“There are different perspectives on what constitutes an error, therefore Error is subjective. There are different ways to compute or estimate the same error, therefore Error is multidimensional. All complex systems involve error, therefore Error is unavoidable. Some approaches to error management are more effective than others, therefore Error is cultural. Performance can be improved by attending to error, therefore Error is educational. Successful communication of error is challenging, therefore Error is misunderstood. Error management goes beyond the boundaries of any individual discipline, therefore Error is transdisciplinary.”
See full presentation here
______________________________
04.21.2025 | Inconclusive decisions and error rates in forensic science by H. Swofford et al.
“…computing error rates raises the question of how to label inconclusive decisions. This has led to the various viewpoints… and some controversy because inconclusive decisions are not necessarily correct or incorrect. A “correct” decision is one that accurately represents the true source-origin state of items being compared. An “incorrect” decision is one that falsely represents the true source-origin state, resulting in an error (i.e., falsely asserting that two impressions originated from the same source or falsely asserting that two impressions originated from different sources). An inconclusive decision, on the other hand, is an outcome of the examination for which an assertion about the source-origin state of the items being compared was not explicitly made. Thus, an inconclusive decision is neither a correct nor erroneous representation of the true source-origin state.”
See full presentation here
______________________________
04.07.2025 | Linear Sequential Unmasking–Expanded (LSU-E): A general approach for improving decision making as well as minimizing noise and bias by I.E Dror and J. Kukucka.
“Linear Sequential Unmasking (LSU) minimizes bias by regulating the flow and order of information such that forensic decisions are based on the evidence and task-relevant information. To accomplish this, LSU requires that forensic comparative decisions must begin with the examination and documentation of the actual evidence from the crime scene (the questioned or unknown material) on its own before being exposed to the ‘target’/suspect (known) reference material. The goal is to minimize the potential biasing effect of the reference/’target’ on the evidence from the crime scene. LSU thus ensures that the evidence from the crime scene -not the ‘target’/suspect- drives the forensic decision.”
See full presentation here | For the ‘sources of bias’ pyramid, click here
______________________________
03.25.2025 | Toward better AFIS practice and process in the forensic fingerprint environment by Caroline Gibb and John Reimen.
“A Close Non-Match (CNM) refers to two friction-ridge impressions that share similar features, making it difficult to distinguish the two impressions [33]. An increasing number of biometric databases contribute to an increased likelihood of shared coincidental similarity between the two impressions [34,35].
There can be a high level of correspondence between the questioned mark and the suggested biometric candidate on the AFIS, leading to potential errors. In this scenario, the potential for error increases because of the complexity of the comparison and the close resemblance of the features.
This emphasises the importance of providing examiners with training to recognise high-risk scenarios and to offer them guidance on how to best document and evaluate these situations [36].
Furthermore, training opportunities for examiners working under difficult conditions could include the use of statistical tools to inform judgments and help express the degree of association when source-level identification or exclusion cannot be determined.”
See full presentation here
______________________________
03.11.2025 | Measuring What Latent Fingerprint Examiners Consider Sufficient Information for Individualization Determinations by Bradford T. Ulery et al.
“What constitutes sufficiency for an examiner to reach an individualization determination is a critical question that has been the subject of extensive discussion and debate for many years; recently, this question has received increased attention as a result of critiques of the forensic sciences, a series of legal challenges to the admissibility of fingerprint evidence in the U.S. and publicized errors. In order to understand the bases for examiners’ determinations, the Authors designed an experiment to investigate the relationship between the clarity and quantity of features in fingerprints and examiners’ determinations.. .”
See full presentation here
______________________________
02.24.2025 | What’s in a Name? Consistency in Latent Print Examiners’ Naming Conventions and Perceptions of Minutiae Frequency by Heidi Eldridge et al.
“Fingerprint minutia types influence LPEs’ decision-making processes during analysis and evaluation, with features perceived to be rarer generally given more weight. However, no large-scale studies comparing examiner perceptions of minutiae frequency to empirical counts exist. Additionally, examiner naming conventions for minutiae vary, increasing confusion over minutia types. The Authors report Phase I of ongoing research – a survey of LPEs that measured consensus in minutiae naming, perceived minutia type frequency, and casework use of frequency information …”
See presentation here
______________________________
02.10.2025 | Changes in latent fingerprint examiners’ markup between Analysis and Comparison by Brandon T. Ulery et al.
“When comparing prints, after establishing anchor points of potential similarity, an examiner looks back and forth between the latent and exemplar to assess the similarity of each potentially corresponding region. This process has been described as involving “forward” comparison (from the latent to the exemplar) and “reverse” comparison (from the exemplar to the latent) [8,10]. Reverse comparison in search of potential discrepancies is necessary, but the examiner needs to be alert to the risk of confirmation bias or circular reasoning. Once an examiner sees a possible alignment between the latent and exemplar, the process of following individual ridges and marking correspondences may result in changes to the latent markup simply because more time and effort is expended, and because additional features may be suggested based on the similarity; when the examiner is unable to find any potentially corresponding areas, there is less basis for such revisions. A notable example of the problem of bias from the exemplar resulting in circular reasoning occurred in the Madrid misidentification, in which the initial examiner reinterpreted five of the original seven Analysis points to be more consistent with the (incorrect) exemplar: “Having found as many as 10 points of unusual similarity, the FBI examiners began to ‘find’ additional features in LFP 17 [the latent print] that were not really there, but rather suggested to the examiners by features in the Mayfield prints. ”
See full article here
______________________________
01.23.2025 | Lecture notes; Understanding Exclusion and Sufficiency Decisions by Glenn Langenburg & John Black.
“Dissimilarity refers to a difference in appearance between two friction ridge impressions. These differences are due to distortion (in tolerance)… Discrepancy on the other hand refers to the presence of friction ridge detail(s) in one impression that do not appear in the corresponding area of another impression. Such originate in the source skin and the term is used as a description when the perceived difference(s) cannot be attributed to distortion (i.e out of tolerance). “
______________________________
01.09.2025 | Testing the accuracy and reliability of palmar friction ridge comparisons – A black box study by Heidi Eldridge et al.
“Typically, testimony about error rates is given in respect to ground truth – after all, if one is discussing accuracy, the matter of interest is whether the correct conclusion was reached. However, we only have the luxury of knowing ground truth in structured studies like this one. In the real world, we never know ground truth. Thus, constructing an error rate based upon knowledge of ground truth does not give a complete picture about how examiners might perform in the real world, where the truth is uncertain. In the real world, the “rightness” of an answer is generally determined by verification – or whether one or more colleagues agree with the decision. “
See full article here
______________________________
12.11.2024 | Documenting and Reporting Inconclusive Results by Alice Maceo.
“An “incomplete” result (Figure 2) will occur when the exemplar prints are inadequate (quantity or quality). The latent print may or may not have limited detail consistent with the exemplar prints. Additional exemplar prints will be required and may permit the analyst to reach a definitive conclusion.. . It is suggested that “incomplete” comparisons, particularly if detail is found consistent, be verified by another analyst. If there are additional subjects compared in the case, the results of these comparisons should be documented, verified, and reported as well. “
See full article here
______________________________
11.18.2024 | Factors associated with latent fingerprint exclusion determinations by Ulery et al.
“SWGFAST defines the term “exclusion” to mean “the determination by an examiner that there is sufficient quality and quantity of detail in disagreement to conclude that two areas of friction ridge impressions did not originate from the same source”.. . Explicitly dividing the old non-identification determination into inconclusive and exclusion determinations reduces ambiguity, but in operational casework the distinction is often not important. Occasionally, the distinction between an inconclusive and an exclusion may be important for exculpatory evidence, if the latent is of high probative value (e.g., on the handle of a knife), or if the latent indicates that another person was present at a crime scene. However, the probative value of an exclusion is usually minimal because excluding a person does not mean that the person did not touch an object. In most casework, an exclusion has the same operational implications as an inconclusive, and an erroneous exclusion usually has the same operational implications as a missed ID. “
See full article here
______________________________
11.06.2024 | Standards for Examining Friction Ridge Impressions and Resulting Conclusions (Latent/Tenprint) Document #10.
“The determination of suitability is based on the assessment of the discriminating strengths of the features and their arrangements. Suitability is the determination that there is adequate quality and quantity of friction ridge features in an impression for some further process step. The assessment is made based on the quality of features (clarity of the observed features), the quantity of features (amount of features and area), the specificity of features, and their relationships. “
See full article here
______________________________
10.27.2024 | Clues in Friction Ridge Comparisons: Tonal Reversals by Sergio Castellon.
“Tonally reversed impressions may be deceptive in that they may appear to be standard (black ridges, white furrows), when in fact, they are not. Fortunately, clues are present in such impressions that will aid the examiner and ensure that accurate information is being observed. “
See full article here
______________________________
10.21.2024 | Techniques for Mitigating Cognitive Biases in Fingerprint Identification by Elizabeth Reese.
“Cognitive biases come in many forms, and their classifications are not mutually exclusive. Confirmation bias, for example, is “the tendency to test a hypothesis by looking for instances that confirm it rather than by searching for potentially falsifying instances. It results from a heuristic based on expectation – the natural tendency of human beings to see what they expect to see. Contextual bias, on the other hand, occurs when decision makers are influenced by exposure to extraneous information that is no it necessary to make the decision at hand… Decision makers subject to the overconfidence bias have an “inflated belief in the accuracy of their knowledge”, resulting in a miscalibration between confidence and accuracy that can hamper judgment.”
See full article here
______________________________
10.14.2024 | Factors that make up the Daubert Standard by U.S Supreme Court, 1993.
“Whether the theory or technique in question can be and has been tested,
Whether it has been subjected to peer review and publication,
The degree of its known or potential error rate,
The existence and maintenance of standards controlling its operation,
Whether it has attracted widespread acceptance within a relevant scientific community.”
______________________________
10.07.2024 | Opinion Testimony by R. Kevin Lawson, IAI 2012 President.
“…Opinion Testimony is NOT the personal opinion of the witness. Scientific opinions must be based in objective and observable data and should result in conclusions that can be substantiated by others.”